It will not be easy, but it is time to move on from the language that developed during the first half-century of the truth embargo. First and foremost is the acronym “UFO.”

Extraterrestrial Craft

Unidentified Flying Object was pushed forward and maintained by the Air Force and other agencies. It is now an anachronistic non-sequitur. It is ludicrous. The phenomenon involves piloted (usually) extraterrestrial craft. It is not about flocks of geese turning up on radar or pie pans being thrown from college dorm windows. It is about non-human created machines operating antigravitically in the skies. This term is no less absurd than a government sponsorship of UTP’s - unidentified tiny particles – to describe the research into the sub-atomic world. And, of course, in a context where the government claims there is no evidence whatsoever for sub-atomic particles. The term “Ufologist” is perhaps even more offensive. A professional studying the unidentified - forever.

UFO? No. Extraterrestrial craft.

Ufologist? No. Extraterrestrial phenomena researcher.

Researcher – Investigator – Journalist – Activist

Which brings us to perhaps the most offensive term in the embargo lexicon – “Believer.” If you have concluded the evidence amassed confirms an extraterrestrial presence, you are a “believer.” This is no less absurd than introducing a particle physicist to an audience by saying, “Dr. Jones is a believer,” and everyone in that audience understands this means Dr. Jones “believes” protons and electrons are real.

Pushing a universal tag on anyone who disagrees with state policy or ideology is common and ancient. More recently those who have challenged the official government conclusions regarding the events of September 11, 2001 are called “truthers.” It is not meant to be a compliment.

There is a bonus for the truth embargo with “believer” as this is a tag often used for those with religious convictions, thus pairing extraterrestrial phenomena research with religion. This pairing was particularly useful during the Heavens Gate fiasco.

You are a researcher, investigator, journalist, activist dealing with extraterrestrial related phenomena, you are not a “believer.”

Extraterrestrial

As for “alien?” Lose it. The term should be “extraterrestrial.” Suck it up and deal with the syllables. “Alien” has a great deal of baggage, much of which was not innocently attached.

Truth Embargo

“Cover-up” is misleading. The basic policy of suppression was not illegal. Certain actions along the way may have been so, but not the policy. “Cover-up” inappropriately criminalizes people inside military services and civilian agencies. Many of them privately support Disclosure. It was not a “cover-up;” it is a “truth embargo.”

Private persons dealing directly with extraterrestrials are “contactees.” Some contactees, perhaps a majority, are “abductees” taken against their will and experiencing varying levels of pain and discomfort. It is misleading, confusing and exopolitically awkward to simply refer to a person in contact with extraterrestrials as an “abductee.” At this time there is no consensus term for someone having only telepathic/psychic contact, but “contactee” is not an unreasonable choice.

Paranormal?

Extraterrestrials are not “paranormal.” The presence of multi-life forms in the galaxy is profoundly “normal.” It is not “paranormal” research. Truth be told, little if anything should be assigned to the paranormal. It should be a short list, and extraterrestrials are not on that list.

Perhaps a more debatable term would be “cattle mutilation.” In this instance I offer these suggestions: “animal” not “cattle” as the phenomenon is not limited to cattle, and “harvesting” not “mutilation” as the evidence clearly points to the acquisition of certain tissues. Thus, “animal harvesting.” On the other hand animal rights activists would certainly assert animals are mutilated when carved up for food. Nevertheless, “mutilation” does not address the purposeful nature of the event.

Agriglyphs

As for “crop circles?” Harmless, perhaps, but certainly not accurate. I lean toward “agriglyphs.”

Does this matter? Yes. All propaganda is built upon language one way or another. The propagandists look for weakness in the used lexicon and/or create their own lexicon to serve their purpose. Don’t play their game. Use language which most reflects the truth as discovered.